seo_audit_performance

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations were provided, so the description carries the burden. It states the tool is safe, read-only, performs no file modifications, and does static analysis rather than browser rendering, which discloses key behavioral traits. It does not mention rate limits or output format, but for a diagnostic tool this is adequate.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is organized into clear sections with front-loaded purpose and uses bullets for guidelines and transparency. It is concise and every section earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a single-parameter read-only diagnostic tool, the description provides sufficient context for selection and invocation: target format is documented, use cases and exclusions are stated, and safety is disclosed. No output schema exists, but the absence of output expectations is a minor gap for a tool whose core behavior is clear.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema already fully documents the single parameter 'target' as a live URL or local file path, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline of 3.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('Identifies') and resource ('code-level Core Web Vitals risks'), enumerating CLS, LCP, and render-blocking scripts. It differentiates from siblings by emphasizing static source analysis rather than browser benchmarking, making it distinguishable from other seo_audit_* tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly states when to use (static HTML/template performance defects) and explicitly warns not to use for real-time synthetic browser benchmarks like Lighthouse. This gives clear routing criteria vs alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.